(1)A party has no right to an adjournment in any event and should not be given an adjournment merely to suit his own convenience, or because his pleader is absent (though in such a case, time for an hour or so should, if possible, be given), or because he is not ready to go on with the case, or because he has neglected to obtain copies of documents which he ought to have procured beforehand. When an adjournment is asked for on the ground that the applicant has to obtain certified copies of certain documents, the Judge should ordinarily require a written application supported by reasons and accompanied by an affidavit indicating that the applicant has not hitherto been guilty of undue delay in applying for copies and that he has not already got such copies in his possession. If the application is granted all costs of production and proof should be thrown on the applicant. It should be realized that it is not necessary to adjourn a case even when it appears necessary to give a party an opportunity to produce additional evidence, oral or written. The correct course, in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, is as follows :(i)conclude the hearing of evidence available;(ii)take a note of the facts which the additional evidence is to prove. If the party cannot say that the evidence is to prove, decline adjournment;(iii)conclude the hearing of arguments;(iv)at the later adjourned stage receive and consider the additional evidence restricting it to the facts noted in (ii). Such evidence, unless of a kind that cannot be tampered with, should not be given the same weight as evidence given at the time of the trial.Note. - The attention of the Courts is drawn to the High Court amendment to Order XVIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. adding the following sub-rule (4) (vide M.P. Rajpatra, dated 16-9-60) :"Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the Court may order that the production of evidence or the address to the Court may be in any order which is may deem fit."
